- #1
kodama
- 1,026
- 139
MrRobotoToo said:The famous paper by Shaposhnikov and Wetterich where they use asymptotic safety to predict that the Higgs boson should have a mass of 126 GeV to within a few GeV uncertainty looms large in my mind. They assumed that there’s a desert separating the electroweak and Planck scales, i.e. no grand unification and no low-energy supersymmetry. There’s also a series of papers by Roberto Percacci and his collaborators where they investigate the effect of matter fields on the asymptotic safety of gravity. The gist of their work is that too many matter fields fouls up asymptotic safety, and go on to show that most grand unified and supersymmetric models are ruled out by this criterion. So this null result further bolsters these speculations of a desert.
Baryon acoustic oscillations acoustic peaks in cosmic microwave background anisotropies
provides evidence for cold dark matter
but is there any sort of prediction as to the specific properties of this dark matter?
predictions as to the mass of this dark matter, total mass, and mass of the individual particle, i.e 100 gev.
prediction as to the lifetime? do they have to continue to persist in the universe? could something like neutrons, clusters of neutrons like dineutrons or tetra neutrons, or even neutron stars, create these acoustic peaks, but decay? or neutrinos perhaps forming a condensate that existed in these energies and densities, but then decay shortly
prediction as to quantity?
i.e the amount of dark matter required to create CMB accoustic peaks is exactly 5x mass of baryons?
do the standard candidates cold dark matter WIMPS, Axions, sterile neutrinos all satisfy these constraints?
is it possible that either known SM particles like neutrons, neutron stars, neutrinos, or even something like strangelets can satisfy this dark matter and create acoustic peaks in CMB, or something like quantum mechanical black holes, primordial black holes, or gravity in theories like MOND or Verlinde, create these oscillations?
asymptotic safety in gravity scenarios, and Verlinde and MOND, suggest there's only modification of gravity to explain galaxy rotation curves, not dark matter. there's only the SM, or some minimal extension of the SM. the most common objection is acoustic peaks in CMB.
if a tetraneutron is stable, long enough during CMB oscillations, could tetraneutrons cause acoustic peaks, so that there's no reason to modify SM, then invoke Verlinde/MOND to explain galaxy rotation
Last edited: